Talk:Kōryū-ji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Wrongful deletion

The following text with in-line citations and an accompanying reference note template was improvidently deleted. The following bibliographic source notes were improvidently deleted as well:

  • (cur) (last) 07:03, 10 December 2007 User:Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) m (866 bytes) (removing irrelevant history. something like "it was here that prince nakanooe shaved his head in 645" might be passable, but a whole mostly irrelevant section is certainly not needed) (undo)
__________________
In 645 -- in the 4rd year of Kōgyoku-tennō's reign ((皇極天皇4年), on the 14th day of the 6th month, the empress announced her intention to abdicate in favor of her younger brother, Karu-shinnō; but he adamently refused to accept the succession (‘‘senso’’).<.ref>Aston, William. (2005). Nihongi, p. 195-196; Brown, Delmer et al. (1979). Gukanshō, p. 266; Varley, H. Paul. Jinnō Shōtōki. p. 44. [A distinct act of senso is unrecognized prior to Emperor Tenji; and all sovereigns except Jitō, Yōzei, Go-Toba, and Fushimi have senso and sokui in the same year until the reign of Go-Murakami.]<./ref> Karu-shinnō persisted in arguing that the throne should go to Prince Prince Naka no Ōe; and then, surprisingly, Naka-no Ōe resolved the impasse by declaring his intention to renounce any claim to the throne by becoming a Buddhist monk. That same day, Naka-no Ōe shaved off his hair at Hōkō-ji in the open air between the Hall of Buddha and the pagoda.<.ref>Aston, William. (2005). Nihongi, p. 195-196.<./ref>
--References--
Template:.reflist

In this unusual context, it is worth noting that there are those earnest editors whose primary contributions to Wikipedia have to do with placing tags on articles which have no bibliographic references, no in-line citations, etc. It is difficult to see how this article was somehow enhanced -- how the quality and value of Wikipedia was somehow improved -- by deleting this material and relevant data in what is, at this point, a mere stub article.

No -- this text and these references did not merit summary deletion. I am persuaded that Bueller 007's problem has less to do with the substance of this minor edit and more to do with me -- with the simple fact that it was me who posted it. If so, that's a different matter entirely, isn't it? In that case, any further efforts invested in responding to criticism about "breaking the flow" of the prose become an evanescent exercise. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bueller 007 has over-reached. His unwelcome "contributions" have been tolerated too long -- no more.

Third opinion I agree with Ooperhoofd in that the story belongs here. Simply saying that this is where someone shaved his head is not enough - you need to say why it was done and, since the reasons were directly related to the inheritance of the imperial throne, the event is worth mentioning in detail. The text needs a little rewording to improve flow and to help make its signifigance clear to the reader. I can help out with that if you like. - 52 Pickup (deal) 07:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Wrongful deletion" ??

1) The events in question took place at 法興寺, NOT 蜂岡寺. Both archaic temple names with the same reading ("Hōkō-ji"). Both completely different temples. The former is Asuka-dera. The latter is Kōryū-ji. Spending just three seconds reading the Japanese Wikipedia article[1] about the incident, or doing a Google search[2] could have confirmed this.
2) It's not really hard to get your head around the fact that information about *the incident* belongs in the article about *the incident*. Duplicating it all leads to redundancy and inconsistency. Bueller 007 (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever good which might have attended a discussion here is best held in abeyance pending whatever develops from inquiries at WP:WQA. In this context, I take some comfort in learning from HelloAnnyong that, at the higher levels of dispute resolution, both users come under scrutiny. I'm quite confident that my entire editing history can withstand close scrutiny. I can't see how User:Bueller 007 can feel similarly at ease with the prospect of a too-revealing examination. --Tenmei (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
@Bueller: A wiki article and that web address are not considered as reliable as published works.
@Temmei: Please recheck your sources to make sure that there is no misunderstanding regarding which temple we're talking about here. - 52 Pickup (deal) 11:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)